linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] device property: export code duplicating array of property entries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170203151552.GC3868@dtor-ws>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:15:52 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] device property: export code duplicating array of
 property entries

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 01:45:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 17:41 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > When augmenting ACPI-enumerated devices with additional property data
> > based
> > on DMI info, a module has often several potential property sets, with
> > only
> > one being active on a given box. In order to save memory it should be
> > possible to mark everything and __initdata or __initconst, execute DMI
> > match early, and duplicate relevant properties. Then kernel will
> > discard
> > the rest of them.
> > 
> 
> Here you again rewrote the code you rewrote in previous patch.
> Please, remove those hunks in previous patch and rebase this one on top
> of the result.

I do no see the point really. If I am not exposing the new APIs then
there is no point in touching the code. If I am creating new API then I
do not want to go through contortion of producing something similar to
the old code flow just to "fix" it in the subsequent patch.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry